In India, the institution of arranged marriages has always been distinguished by strength and strength, and this tradition is livelier than anyone alive today. The numbers are staggering: according to various sources, in 2013 from 73% to 90% of all marriages in this country are negotiated. On this fertile ground, an interesting sociological study was carried out, the purpose of which was to measure, by a number of criteria, the level of satisfaction with married life among people who entered into a “love marriage” and those who are in arranged marriage. The results showed that love marriages begin violently, there is a lot of passion and happiness at the initial stage, but over time these feelings significantly weaken, and with them the quality of life together sharply decreases. Conversely, arranged marriages start out cold, but they also show a powerful upward trend: contentment, love,mutual respect and the quality of life together are enhanced over time. The intersection of these two curves is observed in the third or fifth year, it is at this point that the strength of love and the level of satisfaction in arranged marriages overtake the corresponding indicators in love marriages, continuing to grow further. By the tenth year, the power of love and the level of satisfaction in arranged marriages is twice that in love marriages. Moreover, the divorce rate in arranged marriages is several times lower, due to which the divorce rate in India is one of the lowest in the world. The same is the situation in other countries where the institution of arranged marriages is widespread.it is at this point that the strength of love and the level of satisfaction in arranged marriages outpace those in love marriages and continue to grow. By the tenth year, the power of love and the level of satisfaction in arranged marriages is twice that in love marriages. Moreover, the divorce rate in arranged marriages is several times lower, due to which the divorce rate in India is one of the lowest in the world. The same is the situation in other countries where the institution of arranged marriages is widespread.it is at this point that the strength of love and the level of satisfaction in arranged marriages outpace those in love marriages and continue to grow. By the tenth year, the power of love and the level of satisfaction in arranged marriages is twice that in love marriages. Moreover, the divorce rate in arranged marriages is several times lower, due to which the divorce rate in India is one of the lowest in the world. The same is the situation in other countries where the institution of arranged marriages is widespread. The same is the situation in other countries where the institution of arranged marriages is widespread. The same is the situation in other countries where the institution of arranged marriages is widespread.
To interpret these results, an important caveat is required: so-called marriages and, in general, romantic relationships "for love" are extremely rarely built on love. At least, this is not at all the kind of love that the teachers of humanity, from Buddha and Christ, through medieval mystics, and up to F. Nietzsche, E. Fromm and the smartest people of the present era, extolled as an ideal. The basis of such a relationship is passion, insanity, what is called infatuation in English. Fromm, the deepest thinker in human relationships, was inclined - perhaps too strictly - to characterize such "love" as a painful addiction, often of a sadomasochistic nature:
Passionate people marry, believing that if they feel good now, in the short term, then they will be good together in the future, in the long term. However, passion, unlike love, is capricious and easily fades away, and if it was the only essential basis of a relationship, then as it fades, satisfaction, mutual respect, interest, care and support also fall, which ultimately leads to parting and divorce. Passion is both beautiful and dangerous feeling, which no one here undertakes to unjustly condemn. She can serve as a start for successful relationships, but you need to understand that she will not be able to become their foundation due to the fragility, uncontrollability, the instinct of possessiveness that permeates her and the conflicts inevitably generated by it.
Arranged marriages (not to be confused with forced ones) begin without a surge of emotion. In them, for people who know in advance that they will live together, the prosaic need to cooperate and build productive relationships comes to the fore from the very beginning. They readily take on the appropriate obligations to care, attention, support each other, and in case of mutual satisfaction, this connection grows stronger over time, which leads to the emergence of love, and sometimes passion.
Thus, we see two opposite scenarios here. The first is a relationship that begins with passion, where passion comes first, and mutual obligations, caring and respect recede into the background, if at all. Such relationships are short-lived, dysfunctional and show a tendency to degenerate over time, sometimes ending simply tragically, because, to quote Shakespeare, "violent feelings have a violent end." In the second scenario, the interaction of people begins with purposeful mutual attempts to establish cooperation and productive relationships, and if this enterprise is successful (and it is not at all so difficult), this leads to the emergence of all those sweet heart feelings, moreover, over time they do not degenerate, but develop and get stronger.
Here is what one of the researchers on the subject, Professor Robert Epstein, writes:
Promotional video:
Does this mean that we need to en masse to follow the example of our Indian comrades and move on to blessed arranged marriages? No, of course not. As they say in the same India, there is no lotus without a stem: in contractual marriages, despite the average positive statistics, it gets its problems and tragedies and they can not grow on any cultural basis. But it is necessary to draw conclusions from this, and before that you need to decide on the question of what relationships are generally needed for. The answer, I think, is not difficult: their meaning lies in compassion, in multiplying the happiness of existence and easing its burden, in especially favorable cases - also to promote mutual growth and development.
In view of this, the first principle, which I would articulate, is that the basis of productive relationships is not insanity with each other, infatuation, but whether people know how to build them on the basis of genuine interest in each other, desire and ability to understand, care and respect, readiness for -really invest their time and mental strength in each other. Passion is usually a potency directly opposite to this, it is imbued with the instinct of possessiveness ("sadism" in Fromm's terminology), the thirst to take possession of a person, his soul, body and attention for the sake of its own selfish needs and in large quantities gives rise to conflicts, contradictions and mental anguish. Passion is "love for oneself," that is, not love at all. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, a deep thinker, alas, rarely recognized as such, rightly warns:
For what is essential, for co-joy and co-action, what is important is not the notorious power of "love", the power of attachment, but specific forms of behavior in specific life situations and their constancy over time. And here the witty Kurt Vonnegut involuntarily comes to mind:
Second principle- the attitude described above, as is often the case in contractual marriages, should not be a spontaneous manifestation of goodwill, from case to case, according to mood, but a conscious goal-directed attitude on both sides. Any art, which is the art of relationships, requires directed, methodical work. Because of our refusal to take it seriously and understand what we have to learn, we tend to let this side of life take its course and expect everything to turn out in the best possible way. But that won't happen. Our world is so arranged that if we do not make sufficient efforts to maintain and develop the system, it tends to disintegrate, entropy will prevail in it, and its fate is premature death. Without attention, the building decays and collapses, the car rusts, the mind becomes dull, the muscles maladjust and weaken, and the relationship … - we already know quite well,how they end.
The aforementioned fundamental obstacle, the absence of a conscious mutual attitude, also has a powerful ally that has entered the flesh and blood of many of us: egocentrism, namely, extreme reluctance to invest something in the world around us and, as often happens, close people when dividends are to us not guaranteed or - oh god - may not be received at all. But in long-term relationships, as in many other areas of life, there is a universal principle: if you don't invest, you don't get. You need to invest in them, invest generously, deliberately, purposefully and mutually - this is what the simple recipe made in the title consists of and the best one can hardly be found. It is on this basis that true love for a person becomes possible, which Fromm characterizes as follows:
Love, therefore, is much more like a squared, reinforced and augmented friendship than a passion imbued with selfishness and possessiveness. It does not seek to subjugate and does not want to obey, it is based on deep mutual interest and kinship, and not a hurricane of emotion - which arises as easily and spontaneously as it disappears. Realizing this, Joseph Joubert wrote: "Do not choose a woman as your wife, whom you would not choose a friend if she were a man."
This led us to the last problem, the problem of choice: not every person deserves the investments described above, will want and be able to answer them equally. Not everyone will arouse our interest, will have the necessary degree of similarity in tastes and views, qualities we value, to make compassion and assistance possible. However, theory will not help us here, this search is entirely in the hands of fortune and our own persistence in experimenting. Charles Bukowski, clearly not the most suitable expert on the topic discussed here, nevertheless makes a completely fair observation, concerning equally the opposite sex:
So happy hunting!
© Oleg Tsendrovsky
